COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Austria, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Luxembourg, 13.7.2022  SWD(2022) 520 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report        Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report          The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  efficiency  of  the  Austrian  justice  system  has  continued  to  improve,  particularly  for 
administrative  cases,  and  the  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  continues  to  be  very 
high.  A  number  of  important  reform  efforts  related  to  judicial  independence  are  ongoing. 
Preparations for the creation of an independent prosecution service continue through an expert 
working group. In a positive step, reporting obligations for the prosecution have been reduced, 
though  amendments  to  further  limit  reporting  related  to  certain  procedural  steps  in  an 
investigation are still pending. While a reform of the appointment procedure for the Supreme 
Court vice-president and president has been announced after the lack of judicial involvement 
in their appointment has come under scrutiny, concerns remain regarding the appointment of 
presidents  and  vice-presidents  at  administrative  courts.  Another  reform  under  preparation 
envisages further judicial involvement in the appointment of candidate judges. Resources for 
the judiciary have been further increased and digitalisation is advancing well. However, despite 
certain improvements, the level of court fees remains high.  

The evaluation of the implementation of the action plan linked to the National Anti-Corruption 
Strategy was finalised in 2022. Investigations into high-level political corruption continue and 
remain subject to close scrutiny, including through a parliamentary investigative committee set 
up to look into allegations of corruption alongside ongoing criminal investigations. Negative 
public narratives targeting investigators in these cases still continued in the second half of 2021, 
but abated by early 2022. Efforts to effectively address risks of conflict of interest for members 
of Parliament, who are not  obliged to  disclose assets, interests, debts  and liabilities, remain 
limited; but guidelines for them on existing legal obligations regarding gifts were published in 
2022.  The  introduction  of  rules  on  ‘revolving  doors’  and  post-employment  provisions  for 
members of Government or Parliament has not advanced. Discussions on reforming the limited 
framework on lobbying continued but no concrete proposals have been presented so far due to 
a  lack  of  agreement  on  the  most  essential  issues.  An  extensive  overhaul  of  political  party 
financing rules, including  clear auditing powers for the Court of Audit, is  in  the process  of 
being adopted by Parliament.  

The  legal  framework  and  enabling  environment  for  media  continue  to  be  strong  and  media 
authorities  continue  to  function  in  an  independent  manner.  While  the  independence  of  the 
public  service  media  is  ensured  by  legal  and  structural  safeguards,  there  are  challenges 
regarding  possible  political  interference  related  to  appointments  to  management  and  board 
positions.  Work  continues  to  address  persisting  challenges  relating  to  the  lack  of  a 
comprehensive and enforceable legal framework for access to documents as the proposed draft 
legislation  has  not  progressed.  The  Government  has  announced  a  reflection  process  given 
concerns  regarding  high  spending  on  state  advertising,  the  fairness  and  transparency  of  its 
allocation and political influence in the process. While standards of the journalistic profession 
remain good, journalists have faced threats and harassment, in particular during protests. 

A system allowing for systematic consultation on draft laws under discussion in Parliament is 
now in place, though challenges remain with the involvement of stakeholders at earlier stages. 
Parliament and the courts have continued to exercise scrutiny over restrictions in the context 
of the COVID-19 pandemic. The National  Human Rights  Institution  has been re-accredited 
and now obtained A-Status. While civil society has benefitted from further financial support 
related to the COVID-19 pandemic and dialogue with the Government is being strengthened, 
civil society has raised some concerns over possible impacts of new anti-terrorism legislation 
on freedom of association, which could restrict its operating space.  

1 

 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

It is recommended to Austria to: 

  Continue the reform  to  establish an independent  Federal  Prosecution Office, taking into 
account  European  standards  on  the  independence  and  autonomy  of  the  prosecution, 
including  to  ensure  the  independent  operation  of  the  specialised  anti-corruption 
prosecution.  

  Address the need for involvement of the judiciary in the procedures for appointment of the 
president  and  vice-president  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  for  court  presidents  of 
administrative courts, taking into account European standards on judicial appointments and 
the selection of court presidents.  

  Finalise the legislative revision of the political party financing rules including to empower 

 

the Court of Audit to audit political party finances. 
Introduce effective rules on assets and interests’ declaration for Members of Parliament, 
including effective monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms. 

  Reform  the framework for the allocation of state advertising by public  authorities at  all 

levels, in particular to improve the fairness and transparency of its distribution.  

  Advance with the reform on access to official information taking into account the European 

standards on access to official documents. 

2 

 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The Austrian justice system has two separate branches. The ordinary jurisdiction consists of 
115  district  courts,  20  regional  courts,  four  higher  regional  courts  and  the  Supreme  Court. 
Austria also has a separate administrative court system with eleven first-instance administrative 
courts (nine regional administrative courts, one federal  administrative court and the finance 
court)  and  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court1.  The  Constitutional  Court,  i.a.  ensures  the 
review  of  the  constitutionality  of  federal  and  regional  laws  and  of  the  legality  of  decrees2. 
Judicial  appointments  are  made  by  the  executive  based  on  non-binding  proposals  by  staff 
panels composed of judges3 or plenary assemblies of a court, which draw up a ranked list of 
three  candidates  for  each  post4.  The  Prosecution  Service  is  a  judicial  authority  set  up  in  a 
hierarchical  structure  under  the  supervision  of  the  Minister  of  Justice,  who  can  issue  both 
general instructions and instructions in individual cases5. Austria participates in the European 
Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (EPPO).  Lawyers  are  registered  in  one  of  the  nine  local  bar 
associations, which are public law corporations and autonomous self-governing bodies, with 
the Federal Bar Association as an umbrella organisation6. 

Independence  

The level of perceived judicial independence in Austria continues to be very high both 
among the general public and companies. Overall, 83% of the general population and 77% 
of companies perceived the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very 
good’  in  20227.  According  to  data  in  the  2022  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  the  level  remains 
consistently  high  for  both  the  general  public  and  companies  since  2016.  Both  figures  have 
slightly decreased in comparison to 2021 (84% for the general public and 78% for companies), 
but  have  increased  in  comparison  with  2016  (77%  for  the  general  public  and  66%  for 
companies). 

The  lack  of  judicial  involvement  in  appointments  to  the  position  of  Supreme  Court 
president and vice-president has come under scrutiny. Following information released in 
January  2022  about  secret  political  side-agreements  regarding  appointments  to  top-level 
positions  in  the  judiciary8,  the  Minister  of  Justice  has  announced  plans  to  reform  the 

1   Several of the district and regional courts are specialised courts. This structure does not necessarily correspond 
to the appeals instances. See CEPEJ (2021), Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member 
States. 

2   For the tasks of the Constitutional Court see Federal Constitutional Law, §§ 137-148.  
3   Staff panels exist at regional and higher regional courts, the Supreme Court and administrative courts and the 
staff panels at the regional courts are also responsible for proposals for district courts. Staff panels include the 
president,  vice-president  and  three  to  five  other  members  of  the  court,  which  are  elected  by  their  peers. 
Constitution Art. 87 paras. 2-3 and Service Act for Judges and Public Prosecutors §§ 25 to 49.  

4   Before  becoming  an  ordinary  court  judge,  candidates  must  first  apply  to  a  post  for  a  candidate  judge  and 
complete  a  traineeship  (usually  four  years).  Candidate  judges  are  appointed  by  the  executive  on 
recommendation of a court president of a  higher regional court. After completing the traineeship, they can 
apply for a vacant post in accordance with the procedure described above. Service Act for Judges and Public 
Prosecutors, §§ 1 to 24.  

5   Public Prosecutors Act, §§ 8, 8a, 29-31.  
6   Lawyers Code, Chapters III and V.  
7   Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); 
low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

8   The revelations related to so called ‘side-letters’ in which the parties of the Government coalition had agreed 
on top-level positions in various fields, including the judiciary, to be divided between the different parties, 

3 

 
                                                 
appointment procedure for the vice-president and president of the Supreme Court9. Currently 
for these posts,  unlike for other positions in  the ordinary judiciary, no judicial involvement 
through a proposal by a staff panel10 is envisaged. This situation, which was already noted in 
the 2021 Rule of Law Report11, has been subject to criticism by judicial associations12 as well 
as  the  Supreme  Court  itself13.  A  roundtable  with  representatives  of  the  Supreme  Court  and 
higher regional courts was organised by the Minister of Justice in February 2022 to discuss this 
issue14  as  well  as  a  second  roundtable  with  representatives  of  judicial  associations.  In  this 
context, and while the Minister of Justice has announced plans to provide for the involvement 
of a body  representing the judiciary in  the appointment  process,  the precise composition  of 
such a body remains to be decided15. Involving the existing staff panel at the Supreme Court 
or  an  equivalent  body  would  be  in  line  with  Council  of  Europe  recommendations  that  the 
procedures for the appointment of presidents of courts should follow the same path as that for 
the selection and appointment of judges16.  

Concerns remain regarding the lack of judicial involvement for appointments to high-
level  positions  at the administrative courts. Several  top  positions at  administrative courts 
were  concerned  by  the  same  type  of  information  released  in  early  2022,  which  has  led 
stakeholders to reiterate their request to ensure judicial involvement in the appointment process 
of administrative court presidents and vice-presidents17. As noted in previous editions of the 
Rule of Law Report18, appointments to these positions at the administrative courts generally 
remain a prerogative of the executive, without systematic involvement of the judiciary19. This 
situation, combined with the broad powers and duties of the presidents and the fact that they 
do not have to be selected from among already appointed judges20, raises concerns with regard 
to  the  compliance  with  European  standards21.  GRECO  has  also  addressed  several 

both for the previous and current Government. See e.g. the position paper of the Judges’ Association on this 
matter, in which they stress that even the appearance of political influence can harm the perception of judicial 
independence: Austrian Association of Judges (2022), Position Paper on current discussions regarding judicial 
appointments. 

9   Ministry of Justice (2022), Roundtable on appointments in the judiciary.  
10   Staff panels include the president, vice-president and three to five other members of a court, which are elected 
by their peers. See also FN 2. Currently, the appointments for these positions are made by the President on 
proposal of the Minister of Justice, without any judicial involvement.  

11   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 4.  
12   Contribution  from  the  Austrian  Association  of  Judges  for  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  10;  Austrian 
Association  of  Judges  and  the  Austrian  Union  of  Judges  and  Prosecutors  (2022),  Open  letter  on  judicial 
appointments.  

13   Contribution from the Austrian Supreme Court for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  
14   Ministry of Justice (2022), Roundtable on appointments in the judiciary. 
15   Ibid. Stakeholders have proposed that the existing staff panel at the Supreme Court should make the proposal 

for appointment. Contribution from the Austrian Supreme Court for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

16   CCJE Opinion No. 19 (2016) on the role of court presidents, para. 38, in conjunction with Recommendation 
CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  to  member  states  on  judges: 
independence, efficiency and responsibilities, para. 47.  

17   Association of Austrian Administrative Judges (2022), Position paper on sideletters. 
18   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 2-3 and 2021 Rule of 

Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 4-5.  

19   Contribution from the Association of European Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. This 
has also been raised again in the context of the current discussion by the Austrian Association of Judges in a 
position paper on judicial appointments (2022).  

20   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 2-3.  
21   CCJE Opinion No. 19 (2016) on the role of court presidents, para. 38, and Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 
of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on judges: independence, efficiency 
and responsibilities, para. 47. 

4 

 
                                                 
recommendations to Austria on this issue22. While the Association of Judges has also raised 
this question in the context of the ongoing discussions on/about appointments at the Supreme 
Court (see above)23, currently no reforms on this matter are planned. According to Council of 
Europe recommendations, if the executive takes decisions regarding the selection of judges, an 
independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary should be 
authorised  to  make  recommendations  or  express  opinions  that  the  executive  follows  in 
practice24. 

Preparatory  work  continues  for  a  reform  of  the  prosecution  service,  with  the  aim  to 
strengthen its independence. The experts working group25 set up in spring 2021 to propose a 
model for an independent prosecution service, headed by a Prosecutor General26, has continued 
to meet on a regular basis27. In November 2021, it presented a confidential interim report to 
Parliament,  which  covers  inter  alia  the  questions  of  independence,  reporting  system, 
instructions, tasks of an independent Prosecutor  General and the constitutional set-up of the 
new  structure.  Other  questions,  such  as  the  appointment  and  dismissal  of  the  Prosecutor 
General and the issue of parliamentary accountability and oversight have been dealt with in a 
second  confidential  interim  report  which  has  been  submitted  to  Parliament  by  the  working 
group in June 202228. The prosecutors’ association has repeatedly stressed the importance of 
avoiding parliamentary scrutiny of ongoing proceedings under the future model29. The working 
group has also conducted a comparison with models in other EU Member States. In addition 
to the working group, the Minister of Justice has set up a separate advisory group to provide 
advice on the political decision-making for this reform30. It should be noted that in the context 
of these discussions,  stakeholders have  also  requested to  ensure the involvement of a panel 
composed in majority of the judiciary in the appointment of prosecutors31. The final result of 
the working group is expected to be publicly presented by the end of summer of 2022. It is 
important that the reform takes into account European standards regarding the independence 
and accountability of the prosecution service32. 

22   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round  – Interim Compliance Report, recommendations x and xi, paras. 27-37; 

GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Interim Compliance Report, para. 50-66. 

23   Austrian Association of Judges (2022), Position paper on judicial appointments.  
24   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states 

on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, para. 47.  

25   The  group  has  27  members,  which  include  academic  experts  on  criminal  and  constitutional  law, 
representatives of different Ministries, of professional associations of the judiciary as well as of all four Chief 
Senior Public Prosecutors, the Supreme Court, and the heads of the Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for the 
Prosecution of Economic Crimes and Corruption (WKStA) and the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office. Input 
from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4.  

26   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 2-3.  
27   As of 17 June 2022, ten meetings had taken place. Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4.  
28   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
29   Prosecutors’ Association (2021), Prosecutor General only with respect of the separation of powers. 
30   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
31   Currently, proposals for appointments of prosecutors are made by a commission composed of two  members 
representing the Ministry of Justice and two representatives of the profession. Prosecutors’ Association (2022), 
Position paper on the appointment process for prosecutors. See Service Act for Judges and Prosecutors, §§ 
180-182.  

32   See in particular Recommendation CM/Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 
on  the  Role  of  Public  Prosecution  in  the  Criminal  Justice  System  and  Venice  Commission  (CDL-
AD(2010)040-e), Report on European Standards as regards the Independence of the Judicial System: Part II - 
the Prosecution Service.  

5 

 
                                                 
Further  legislative  changes  are  being  prepared  to  reduce  reporting  obligations  for 
prosecutors to the Ministry of Justice. A Ministerial decree entered into force on 1 August 
2021 which limits in particular ‘group reporting’ obligations related to specific types of crimes 
and ‘information reporting’ obligations33. This follows a number of steps already taken earlier 
in  2021  to  reduce  reporting  obligations  on  prosecutors  as  noted  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 
Report34.  In  addition,  draft  amendments  to  the  Public  Prosecutors  Act  are  currently  under 
preparation which would also remove so-called ‘information reporting’ obligations in advance 
of major procedural steps, which prosecution services consider to be particularly burdensome35. 
Overall, the aim of these steps is to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate reporting burdens 
on prosecutors. The Minister of Justice issued 20 instructions in individual cases in 202136, 
following in all cases the non-binding opinion of the consultative Council of Directives37. The 
annual ‘Report on instructions’ delivered by the Government to Parliament was published in 
October  2021  and  reports  on  52  instructions  by  the  Minister  of  Justice  in  individual  cases 
between  2014  and  2020  (covering  only  closed  cases),  including  three  instructions  not  to 
prosecute38.  

The appointment process for candidate judges at the ordinary courts is being reformed 
to  improve  the  involvement  of  the  judiciary  in  their  selection.  Draft  amendments  to  the 
service  act  for  judges  and  prosecutors  to  transfer  the  power  to  make  proposals  for  the 
appointment  of  candidate  judges  to  the  External  Senates  of  the  higher  regional  courts  were 
submitted to public consultation between 27 April and 16 May 202239. External Senates are 
established  at  all  four  higher  regional  courts  and  are  composed  of  the  president  and  vice-
president of the court as well as three judges elected by their peers40. Currently, presidents of 
the  higher  regional  courts  directly  propose  the  candidate  judges  for  appointment  by  the 
executive41. The lack of involvement  of judges elected by  their peers has  been subject  to  a 

33   Decree of 12 June 2021 on the new regulation of reporting obligations for prosecutors (Erlass vom 12. Juni 
2021  über  die  Neuregelung  der  staatsanwaltschaftlichen  Berichtspflichten  (Berichtspflichtenerlass  2021); 
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 5.  

34   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 3-4.  
35   Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 5; Information received from the Ministry of Justice 

and the Prosecution Service in the context of the country visit to Austria.  

36   11 of these concerned instructions in individual cases and 9 ‘mixed cases’ of instructions in individual cases 
with a special public interest dimension. This is a similar number to 2020, when 22 instructions in individual 
cases were issued; 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 3-4.  
37   Information received from the Council of Directives in the context of the country visit to Austria. The Council 
of Directives is an independent advisory council for the Minister’s Directive tasked  with providing a  non-
binding opinion on all instructions in individual cases (as well as certain other types of instructions) before 
they are issued. Law on Prosecutors, § 29 b-c. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule 
of law situation in Austria, p. 4 for further details on the Council of Directives.  

38   Ministry of Justice (2021), Report on instructions 2020.  
39   They are part of the Service Law Amendment 2022. See also input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law 

Report, p. 2.  

40   The members and their substitutes are elected by the elected members of the staff panels at all first instance 
courts  within  the  district  of  the  Higher  Regional  Court  from  among  all  eligible  judges  within  the  Higher 
Regional Court’s district. An External Senate is also established at the Supreme Court, with two ex-officio 
members (president and vice-president) and five judges elected by their peers, who are elected by the elected 
members of the staff panels at the Upper Regional Courts and the Supreme Court from among all eligible 
judges at the Upper Regional Courts and the Supreme Court. § 36a, Service Act for Judges and Prosecutors.  

41   Service Act for Judges and Prosecutors, § 3.  

6 

 
                                                 
GRECO recommendation42 and is also a long-standing criticism from stakeholders43, who have 
welcomed the reform44. The amendments, if adopted, would be in line with European standards 
for the selection and appointment of judges according to which, when the Government or the 
legislative  power  take  decisions  concerning  the  selection  of  judges,  an  independent  and 
competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary should be authorised to make 
recommendations  or  express  opinions  which  the  relevant  appointing  authority  follows  in 
practice45. There is currently no possibility for judicial review for the appointment of candidate 
judges (as for all judicial appointments) and no plan for it to be introduced46.  

Discussions around a potential reform of the system of evaluation of judges are ongoing. 
The Ministry of Justice and stakeholders have been discussing the possible introduction of a 
system  of  periodic  evaluation  of  judges47,  as  has  also  been  recommended  by  GRECO48. 
Currently, judges newly appointed to a post must undergo an appraisal two years after their 
appointment and subsequently if they take up a different position49 or in case of an appraisal 
below a specific threshold50. Any evaluation can be challenged at the staff panel of the superior 
court51. Following criticism to a first internal draft proposal, the Ministry of Justice is currently 
rolling out a pilot project in selected courts, where judges, with their consent, will be subject 
to  a  new  evaluation  procedure  within  the  first  quarter  of  2022,  in  parallel  to  the  regular 
evaluation.  This  will  in  particular  entail  a  more  feedback-based  process,  with  a  stronger 
involvement  of  the  judge,  as  the  evaluation  is  viewed  more  as  a  ‘formality’  without  an 
opportunity  of  genuine  feedback52.  Based  on  results  of  the  pilot  project,  the  Ministry  will 
consider the possible next steps as to whether take forward a reform of the evaluation system. 
In the context of the discussions around a reform of the evaluation system, stakeholders have 
also  criticised53  an  existing  rule  that  foresees  that  two  ‘not  satisfactory’  evaluations  in 
consecutive calendar years can lead to the automatic dismissal of the judge54 in view of the 

42   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, recommendation x, paras. 27-32.  
43   Austrian Association of Judges and Austrian Union of Judges and Prosecutors, Resources for the Rule of Law, 
pp.  10-11;  Association  of  Austrian  Administrative  Judges  (2017),  Agenda  for  the  administrative  judiciary 
2022, pp. 3-5.  

44   Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3; Contribution 

from the Austrian Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 10.  

45   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states 

on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, para. 47. 

46   Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3.  
47   Contribution  from the European  Association of Judges  for the 2022 Rule of  Law  Report,  p. 8 and  written 

information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.  

48   GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Interim  Compliance  Report,  recommendation  xii.  GRECO  has  also 
recommended that such periodic appraisals should be used to inform subsequent decisions for appointments 
to higher posts.  

49   Service Act on Judges and prosecutors, § 51. See also GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, 

para 94.  

50   If the overall evaluation is not at least ‘very good’ (second grade on a five step scale), an evaluation has to be 

foreseen in the next year as well. Service act on judges and prosecutors, § 51.  

51   Service Act on Judges and Prosecutors, § 55(3).  
52   Information received from the Ministry of Justice and the Association of Judges in the context of the country 

visit to Austria.  

53   Contribution from the Association of European Administration of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, 

pp. 12-13.  

54   This  evaluation  (nicht  entsprechend)  is  the  lowest  grade  on  the  five  grade  scale.  As  mentioned  above, 
evaluations in consecutive years only take place if there is an evaluation below ‘very good’. Service Act on 
Judges and Prosecutors, § 88. If the judge does not comply with a request for this automatic retirement, the 
relevant service court will be seized on the matter, see Service Act on Judges and Prosecutors, § 92.  

7 

 
                                                 
limited  possibilities  for  appeal,  particularly  for  administrative  court  judges55.  As  regard  the 
overall integrity system for judges, further steps have been made to roll-out the compliance 
management  system  referred  to  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report56,  with  a  network  of  57 
compliance officers (who function as single points of contact for compliance issues raised by 
all judicial employees) now established throughout the justice and correction system, which 
met for the first time in November 202157.  

Quality  

The overall resources of the judiciary have continued to increase, while challenges remain 
at the Federal Finance Court. Following the budgetary increases in 2020 and 202158, further 
resources have been allocated to the judiciary in 2022, with an increase of approximately EUR 
76 million (4.25% increase compared to 2021). Further positions for court staff have also been 
created59. However, at the Federal Finance Court, where specific challenges have already been 
noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report60, 29 out of 224 positions for judges remained vacant as 
of January 202261. In addition, the number of court staff remains overall low compared to the 
number of judges, which has been raised as a challenge by stakeholders and the Court of Audit, 
also in view of the existing backlog of cases62.  

Further  progress  has  been  made  regarding  digitalisation  of  justice.  Comprehensive 
procedurals rules for use of digital tools are in place in Austria and use of digital tools by courts 
and  prosecution  services  and  electronic  communication  between  courts  and  court  users  is 
widespread63. Furthermore, the implementation of the ‘Justiz 3.0’ project for the roll-out of the 
electronic  file  is  progressing.  As  of  June  2022,  proceedings  at  111  courts  and  prosecution 
offices  were  completely  digitalised  within  the  project,  over  470 000  files  were  processed 
exclusively digitally and  more than 140 000 hearings conducted digitally64. Amendments to 
the Civil Procedural Code were adopted on 7 April 2022 aim to further improve the framework 
for the fully electronic handling of court proceedings65. The question of a further development 
of the use of videoconferences in court hearings is currently discussed in a separate working 
group.  However,  administrative  courts  do  not  participate  in  the  Justiz  3.0  project  and 
stakeholders  consider  that  the  lack  of  a  uniform  e-filing  system,  including  for  documents 
received by administrative authorities, can be a challenge66. 

55   Contribution from the Association of European Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  
56   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 5.  
57   Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 10-11.  
58   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 4-5 and 2021 Rule of 

Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 5-6.  

59   This increase in resources aims to among other cover higher personnel costs due to wage increases. Input from 

Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 5-6.  

60   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 6.  
61   While 12 new judges are set to take up their duties in April 2021, 13 judges are also expected to retire in 2022. 

Written contribution received from the Austrian Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit.  

62   Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14-15.  
63   Figures 42-45, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
64   Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 7.  
65   Amendment of the civil procedural code 2021.  
66   Contribution from the Association of European Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 15 
and information received from the Association of Judges and Association of Austrian Administrative Judges 
in the context of the country visit.  

8 

 
                                                 
Recently adopted changes to the Civil Procedural Code aim to reduce certain court fees, 
which  remain  high  overall.  In  the  context  of  amendments  to  the  Civil  Procedural  Code 
adopted by Parliament in April 202267, a number of court fees are set to be reduced68 and the 
Ministry of Justice also considers to postpone the annual inflation adjustment from 2022 and 
2023, in view of currently very high inflation rates69. However, as stakeholders note, the overall 
level of court fees remains very high, which can constitute a barrier for access to justice70, and 
income from court fees still corresponds to over 100% of the judiciary’s budget71. While the 
introduction of a cap on court fees72, which has repeatedly been requested by stakeholders73 as 
noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report74, has been assessed within the Ministry of Justice, no 
further steps have been taken in this respect75.  

Efficiency 

The  performance  of  the  justice  system  remains  overall  efficient  and  shows  further 
improvements for administrative cases. As regards litigious civil and commercial cases, the 
average time to resolve them has slightly increased, but remains still very low (157 days in 
2020  compared  to  137  days  in  2019)76,  with  a  stable  clearance  rate  at  99.8%  (100.4%  in 
2019)77. The number of pending litigious civil and commercial cases remains low (0.4 cases 
per 100 inhabitants78), showing that the justice system overall handles its caseload efficiently. 
Regarding administrative cases, efficiency indicators show further improvements following the 
trend  already  identified  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report79,  with  a  further  increase  in  the 
clearance rate (126% in 2020 compared to 110.7% in 201980) and progress in the reduction of 
pending cases (0.7 per 100 inhabitants in 2020 compared to 0.8 in 201981). While the overall 
time  to  resolve  administrative  cases  remains  long,  it  should  be  noted  that  it  has  further 
decreased over the reporting period (388 days in 2020 compared to 440 days in 201982).  

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

Austria  has  a  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  in  place  and  the  implementation  of  the 
accompanying Action Plan 2019-2020 was evaluated. The relevant authorities involved in the 
prevention of and the fight against corruption include the Federal Ministry of Justice and its 
Coordinating Body for the Fight against Corruption, the Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for 
Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption (WKStA), the Federal Ministry of the Interior 
and its Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption (BAK) and the Criminal Intelligence Service (BK) 

67   Amendment of the civil procedure 2021.  
68   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 6.  
69   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
70   Contribution from the Austrian Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 11-12. 
71   CEPEJ (2020), Evaluation Report on European judicial systems, p. 33.  
72   Court fees are calculated as a percentage of the value of the case and, in the absence of a cap on fees, can, 

therefore, be very high in high-value cases.  

73   Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law Societies (CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  
74   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 6-7.  
75   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
76   Figure 7, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
77   Figure 12, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
78   Figure 15, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
79   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 8.  
80   Figure 13, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
81   Figure 16, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
82   Figure 9, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

9 

 
                                                 
as well as the Court of Audit. The legal framework includes relevant provisions in the Criminal 
Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as specific legislation in the fight against 
corruption83. 

The perception of public sector corruption among experts and business executives is that 
the level of corruption in the public sector remains relatively low. In the 2021 Corruption 
Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Austria scores 74/100 and ranks 6th in the 
European Union and 13th globally84. This perception has been relatively stable85 over the past 
five  years.  The  2022  Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  57%  of  respondents 
consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 68%) and 20% of respondents 
feel  personally  affected  by  corruption  in  their  daily  lives  (EU  average  24%)86.  As  regards 
businesses, 56% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 
24%  consider  that  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  34%)87. 
Furthermore, 47% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter 
people from corrupt practices (EU average 34%)88, while 42% of companies believe that people 
and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are  appropriately  punished  (EU  average 
29%)89.  

The evaluation of the 2019-2020 Action Plan accompanying the National Anti-Corruption 
Strategy has been completed, and a further reform of the anti-corruption legislation is 
being considered. The evaluation of the Action Plan, which was delayed due to the COVID-
19 pandemic, started in July 2021 and was set to be completed in spring 2022. A decision by 
the Coordinating Body for the Fight against Corruption is now expected on next steps90. The 
Network  for  Integrity  Officers,  set  up  in  the  framework  of  the  Action  Plan91,  continued  to 
operate  in  2021  providing  support  to  inquiries  of  integrity  officers,  although  no  training 
activities were carried out92. Furthermore, a reform of the anti-corruption legislation, which 

83   Relevant legislation includes: the Federal Act on the Establishment and Organisation of the Federal Bureau of 
Anti-Corruption, the Federal Statute on Responsibility of Entities for Criminal Offences and the Federal Act 
on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on 
the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 6 and 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law 
situation in Austria, p. 8-9. 

84   Transparency  International  (2022),  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2021,  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption  is  categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public 
sector corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-
50), high (scores below 50). 

85   In 2017 the score was 75, while, in 2021, the score is 74. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

86   Special Eurobarometer 523 on Corruption (2022). The Eurobarometer data on citizens’ corruption perception 
and  experience  is  updated  every  second  year.  The  previous  data  set  is  the  Special  Eurobarometer  502  on 
Corruption (2020). 

87   Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022). The Eurobarometer 
data on business attitudes towards corruption as is updated every second year. The previous data set is the 
Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

88   Special Eurobarometer 523 on Corruption (2022).  
89   Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022).  
90   Information received from the Ministry of Justice and the Coordinating Body for the Fight against Corruption 

in the context of the country visit to Austria. 

91   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 8. 
92   Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11 and written contribution from Austria. See also the 

website of the Network at www.integritaet.info.  

10 

 
                                                 
would  include  the  criminalisation  of  bribery  of  political  candidates  and  the  purchases  of 
mandates, is currently being negotiated93.  

A  number  of  high-level  corruption  investigations  are  proceeding  and,  in  this  context, 
public  prosecutors  continue  to  face  scrutiny  and  at  times  political  attacks.  These 
investigations are generally led by the WKStA. A number of high-profile corruption cases have 
led  to  a  change  in  the  Government  as  well  as  arrests  of  a  number  of  high-level  officials94. 
Negative public narratives targeting the investigators in these high-level corruption cases, as 
reported  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  report95,  initially  continued  during  the  reporting  period. 
According to stakeholders, such statements eventually abated by early 202296. Nevertheless, 
prosecutors  and  judges  indicate  that  vigilance  remains  necessary,  particularly  in  relation  to 
renewed scrutiny  in  the  context  of the parliamentary investigative committee (see below)97. 
Due  to  allegations  of  conflicts  of  interest,  the  WKStA’s  supervision  over  one  high-level 
corruption  case  has  been  moved  from  the  Vienna’s  Senior  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  to  a 
prosecutor  from  another  Senior  Prosecutor’s  Office98.  Moreover,  the  independent  legal 
protection  officer  faced  some  scrutiny  following  allegations  of  conflicts  of  interest.  In  this 
context, stakeholders have noted that, while the independence of the function is paramount, no 
disciplinary process against the legal protection officer is legally possible99. The Federal Anti-
Corruption Bureau (BAK) detected 82 potential cases of corruption in 2021100 in addition to 
688 potential cases of abuse of authority101. 

In  parallel  to  the  ongoing  criminal  investigations,  the  Parliament  has  set-up  an 
investigative  committee  into  alleged  corruption  concerning  a  political  party.  The 
committee was set-up in December 2021102. All institutions concerned have already submitted 

93   Anti-Corruption Referendum (2022), Anti-corruption referendum: Reform of criminal law on corruption an 

important step.  

94   Press  Statement  from  the  WKStA  on  the  house  searches  of  6  October 2021  and Press Statement  from  the 

WKStA on the arrest of 2 March 2022.  

95   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 9. 
96   Contribution from the Austrian Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11 and Contribution from 
the Austrian Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11; Austrian Association of Prosecutors 
(2021), Prosecutors react to press conference alleging ‘leftist cells’ in the WkStA.  

97   In particular, the President of the Association of Prosecutors expressed concerns about the politicisation of 
certain criminal investigations in the context of the parliamentary investigative committee. Wiener Zeitung 
(2022),  Interview  with  Cornelia  Koller,  President  of  the  Association  of  Prosecutors:  ‘Angezeigt  ist  gleich 
angepatzt’. 

98   The  prosecutor  is  detached  to  the  Vienna  Prosecutor’s  Office.  Ministry  of  Justice  (2022),  Answers  to  the 

written question 9096/J-NR/2021 from Representative W. Gerstl to the Minister of Justice, p. 2. 

99   According  to  the  Austrian  Criminal  Procedure  Code,  article  47a,  the  Legal  Protection  Officer  cannot  be 
recalled. Information received in the context of the country visit to Austria and Wiener Zeitung (2021), Legal 
Protection Officer cannot be recalled. To note that the legal protection officer has since resigned on her own 
accord.  

100  11 cases of corruptibility (art. 304 of the Criminal Code), 11 cases of acceptance of an advantage (art. 305), 5 
cases of acceptance of an advantage for the purpose of exerting influence (art. 306) and 4 cases of bribery (art. 
307), 2 cases of offering an advantage (art. 307a), 8 cases of acceptance of gifts and bribery of employees or 
agents (art. 309) and 30 cases of breaches of official secrecy (art. 310). One case of breach of trust due to 
abuse of an official function or due to involvement of an office holder (art. 313 in conjunction with art. 153). 
Compared to 32 cases in 2020 – see 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in 
Austria, p. 9 and statistical update provided by the Austrian authorities. 

101  Input from  Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 17 and statistical update provided by the Austrian 

authorities. 

102  Austrian  Parliament  (2021),  Demand  for  the  establishment  of  a  committee  of  inquiry:  ÖVP  corruption 

investigation committee, and Austrian Parliament (2021), ÖVP corruption investigation committee.  

11 

 
                                                 
relevant  information, and the first  hearings  in  front  of the  committee commenced  in March 
2022103.  Stakeholders  have  expressed  concerns  that  the  parliamentary  investigation  could 
potentially  lead  to  inadvertent  disclosure  of  sensitive  material  used  in  the  ongoing  criminal 
proceedings, although a consultation mechanism is in place between  the Parliament and the 
Minister  of  Justice  to  mitigate  such  risks104.  Current  rules  of  procedure  stipulate  that  the 
President  of  the  National  Council  chairs  such  investigative  committees.  In  response  to  the 
concern raised by some opposition parties over a possible conflict of interest, the President of 
the National  Council  has indicated he would relinquish his  chairmanship on a  case-by-case 
basis, depending on the witnesses interviewed105.  

The  prosecution  services  appear  to  have  adequate  capacity  for  anti-corruption 
prosecutions,  although  some  challenges  remain  as  regards  staffing  and  specialisation. 
Overall,  anti-corruption  prosecutors  consider  they  can  adequately  carry  out  their  tasks106. 
However,  the  WKStA  has  called  for  additional  ten  posts  (in  addition  to  the  42  it  currently 
has)107 as well as identified a need for additional specialised staff, including staff specialised 
in  investigating  white  collar  crime  and  staff  with  more  technical  and  IT  knowledge108.  The 
BAK has 103 posts and its budget has increased over the last years 109. However, civil society 
has criticised the fact that the BAK currently only has an interim head, and that the vacancy for 
this position has not been advertised for the past two years110.  

The ability of the prosecution, including the WKStA,  to search  the  premises of public 
authorities  has  been  safeguarded.  A  legislative  proposal  that  would  limit  searches  of  the 
premises of public authorities was withdrawn following widespread opposition, including by 
civil  society  and  the  prosecution  services111.  The  proposal  would  have  introduced  the 
requirement  to  request  ‘administrative  cooperation’  from  concerned  institutions  before  the 
prosecution  service,  including  the  WKStA,  could  conduct  on-the-spot  searches112.  A  more 
limited change, regulating only the seizure of documents containing secret information, was 

103  Austrian Parliament (2021), ÖVP corruption investigation committee.  
104  Austrian Parliament (2019), Handbook on the Law of Committees of Inquiry in the National Council, p. 223-
228. The Federal Minister of Justice can initiate the consultation should he or she be of the opinion that requests 
by  the  investigative  committee  touch  upon  ongoing  criminal  investigations.  The  Chairperson  of  the 
investigative committee is obliged to consult the Minister without delay. In case there is no agreement, the 
Constitutional Court can decide on disputes. Information received in the context of the country visit to Austria. 
See also Wiener Zeitung (2022), Interview with Cornelia Koller, President of the Association of Prosecutors: 
‘Angezeigt ist gleich angepatzt’. 

105  Der Standard (2022), Sobotka wants to relinquish chairmanship of ÖVP corruption committee on a case-by-

case basis.  

106  Information  received  from  the  Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Combating  Economic  Crimes  and 
Corruption and the Senior Public Prosecutor’s Office Vienna in the context of the country visit to Austria. 
107  Information  received  from  the  Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Combating  Economic  Crimes  and 
Corruption in the context of the country visit to Austria and Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating 
Economic Crimes and Corruption (2022), Business allocation overview.  

108  Der  Standard  (2021),  Trend  reversal  in  the  judiciary  budget  continues  and  information  received  from  the 
Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Combating  Economic  Crimes  and  Corruption  in  the  context  of  the 
country visit.  

109  Ministry of Finance (2022), Federal Budget 2022 - Subdivision 11 Interior, p. 96-100. 
110  Anti-corruption Referendum (2022), ‘Unglorious anniversary’: Head of the Federal Anti-Corruption Office 

has not been filled for two years. 

111  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 9-10. 
112  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 9-10. 

12 

 
                                                 
enacted instead113. A ministerial decree which entered into force on 21 April 2022 has clarified 
that  investigations  of  accomplices  to  persons  enjoying  immunity  from  prosecution  and  are 
likewise suspected of crimes, are legal114.  

Burdensome  reporting  obligations  for  the  public  prosecution  office,  including  the 
WKStA, have been relaxed. A ministerial decree relaxed the previously reported reporting 
obligations115.  Following  these  changes  (see  Section  1),  anti-corruption  prosecutors  already 
signal a decrease in reporting obligations, including in corruption-related cases116.  

Efforts to effectively reduce the risks of conflicts of interest for members of Parliament 
remain limited.  As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, members of Parliament are not 
obliged  to  publicly  declare  their  assets,  interests,  debts,  liabilities  or  any  other  economic 
interests, including company investments117, although there are certain exceptions118. This lack 
of declaration obligations is the subject of several GRECO recommendations119. The existing 
Code of Conduct for Members of the National Council and Members of the Federal Council 
mainly reiterates existing legal provisions120. Moreover, there are no monitoring and sanction 
mechanisms to control the accuracy of declarations when published voluntarily121. While the 
compliance  unit  of  the  Parliamentary  Administration  offers  voluntary  and  confidential 
counselling to Members of Parliament in relation to integrity and conflict of interest matters, 
the unit does not have the mandate to verify or investigate whether the Members of Parliament 
act in line with the law and whether the compliance unit’s advice was followed. Between April 
2019 and May 2022, the compliance unit was asked for such counselling by 43 members of 
Parliament122.  There  is  no  overview  of  which  (or  how  many)  members  of  Parliament 
voluntarily  declare  their  assets  and  interests123.  Internal  guidelines  providing  guidance  to 
members of Parliament on the existing legal provisions in relation to gifts and other advantages 
were published in early 2022124.  

113  Amendment of the Police State Protection Act, the Security Police Act, the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal 

Procedure 1975 and the Repayment Act 1972.  

114  Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 18. Evidence on the immune person could be gathered, 

as long as the investigation does not violate the immunity of the immune person. 

115  See Section I. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 4 

and 7 and 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 3. 

116  Information received from prosecutors in the context of the country visit to Austria. 
117  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11. 
118  According  to  the  Incompatibility  and  Transparency  Act,  Members  of  Parliament  have  to  report  certain 
activities (e.g. executive positions held by them in stock corporations or other kinds of employment) as well 
as the average monthly gross emoluments earned in a calendar year in respect of these activities to the president 
of the respective representative body. 

119  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Interim  Compliance  Report,  recommendations  iii  –  viii  and  GRECO 

Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Interim Compliance Report, recommendations iii-viii. 

120  Austrian  Parliament  (2021),  Code  of  Conduct  for  Members  of  the  National  Council  and  Members  of  the 

Federal Council. 

121  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 9 and 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11. 
122  Fourteen in 2019, eight in 2020, nine in 2021 and (so far) twelve in 2022. 
123  Written contribution and information received from the Parliamentary Administration in the context of the 

country visit to Austria.  

124  Austrian  Parliament  (2022),  Guidelines  for  Members  of  Parliament  on  how  to  Deal  with  Gifts  and  other 

Advantages.  

13 

 
                                                 
The Code of Conduct for preventing corruption in the civil service, adopted in 2020, is 
applied125. Certain departments or local authorities also have their own codes of conduct in 
addition126.  The  Federal  Disciplinary  Authority,  established  in  October  2020  to  issue 
disciplinary  findings  for  federal  civil  servants,  took  over  313  cases  from  the  previous  26 
separate Disciplinary Commissions, and initiated 66 new cases in the first three months of its 
functioning – although it is unclear how many of these cases concern corruption or abuse of 
office127. Likewise, in 2021, 502 cases were initiated, with 56 leading to a court decision128. 
No disciplinary cases have been initiated so far against civil servants within the Parliamentary 
Administration  since  the  separate  Disciplinary  Commission  was  set  up  there  in  October 
2020129.  

Discussions to strengthen legislation on lobbying are ongoing.  The working group of the 
Federal Ministry of Justice, set up in 2020130 to examine possible improvements of the legal 
framework on lobbying, completed its work and issued an interim report. No agreement has so 
far  been  reached  in  this  working  group  on  essential  issues  of  a  potential  reform,  such  as 
introducing  a  cooling-off  period,  a  legislative  footprint,  and  a  monitoring  and  sanctioning 
mechanism, which have been recommended by GRECO131 and stakeholders132. It remains up 
to the political level to consider further steps.  

The introduction of rules to address ‘revolving doors’ and of post-employment provisions 
for members of Government or Parliament has not advanced133. The legislative proposal 
introducing a three year cooling-off period for members of Government who aim to become 
members or alternate members of the Constitutional Court for three years has not advanced, as 
it is part of the currently stalled legislative package on access to information (see Section 3)134. 
No other reforms in relation to members of Government or Parliament are ongoing. Existing 
post-employment rules for all federal civil servants remain in effect (cooling-off period of six 
months) although they apply only in a limited number of strictly defined cases135.  

A reform of the political party financing framework is in the process of being adopted by 
Parliament. The Government proposed the reform at the end of February 2022, as announced 
in its Government Programme136. The reform would address a number of issues regarding the 
current  system  that  had  been  noted  in  the  2020  and  2021  Rule  of  Law  Reports137.  Most 
significantly,  the  reform  would  introduce  clear  inspection  powers  for  the  Court  of  Audit, 

125  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11. 
126  Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria. 
127  Federal Disciplinary Authority (2020), Annual Report 2020, pp. 1-3. 
128  Federal Disciplinary Authority (2021), Annual Report 2021, pp. 1-3. 
129  Information received from the Parliamentary Administration in the context of the country visit to Austria. 
130  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p.12. 
131  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Interim  Compliance  Report,  recommendations  ii,  paras.  13-17  and 
GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Interim Compliance Report, recommendations ii, paras. 13-17. 
132  Information received from Antikorruptionsbegehren and Transparency International Austria in the context of 

the country visit to Austria. 

133  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 8-9. 
134  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Austria,  p.11  and  information 

received from the Federal Chancellery in the context of the country visit to Austria. 

135  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Austria,  pp.  8-9  and  written 
contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria. See also article 20 and 
61 of the Civil Service Law and article 30a of the Act on Contractual Public Employees.  
136  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 10. 
137  Ibid and 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 7.  

14 

 
                                                 
strengthen reporting obligations and the rules for donations to political parties and increase the 
sanctions for breaking the rules. The proposal was widely welcomed, including by the Court 
of Audit and civil society138. Following initial discussions with opposition as well as the Court 
of Audit, the text was introduced in Parliament and adopted by the National Council in July 
2022 with the required two-thirds majority139.   

While the whistleblower protection framework is being reformed, an existing reporting 
system assists prosecutors in the fight against corruption. A reform of the whistleblower 
protection  framework  is  ongoing,  with  the  aim  to  transpose  into  national  law  the 
Whistleblowers Directive140. A draft law was published for public consultation and will then 
proceed  to  the  government  and  parliamentary  proceedings141.  The  online  whistleblower 
reporting tool under the WKStA is working well and attracting more and more reports. This 
brings useful additional information in existing cases as well as leading to a number of new 
cases142. 

Civil society has introduced a request for a popular initiative  on the topic of corruption. 
The initiative includes measures relating to the judiciary as well as transparency and integrity 
of top-level functions. The initiative was opened up for signatures of the wider population in 
May 2022, following a registration phase. The proposal will need to be discussed in Parliament 
upon receiving 100 000 signatures from voters143. At the end of 2021, around 90% of Austrians 
indicated corruption in politics is a ‘large or very large’ issue in one survey144. 

Risks  of  corruption  in  relation  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  are  being  investigated  by 
auditors.  Law  enforcement  authorities  confirm  a  number  of  COVID-19  related  corruption 
cases mostly in the public procurement field (such as relabelling of equipment) as well as fraud 
and  bribery  related  to  vaccination  and/or  related  documentation145.  The  Court  of  Audit  has 
carried out a number of audits into measures linked to the pandemic. Risks of potential misuse 
were identified with regards to the short-term unemployment insurance scheme developed by 

138  Transparency  International  Austria  (2022),  Austria,  Political  parties’  law  –  Important  first  step!  and  ORF 
(2022), Political Party Finances – Court of Audit will get insight: ‘Court of Audit President Margit Kraker 
welcomed the reform proposed by the coalition parties. She spoke of an ‘important step for more transparency 
and control’.’ The Court of Audit had publicly introduced its own proposal for a reform in October 2021, in 
order to put pressure on the  Government. This proposal had foreseen additional provisions in terms of the 
control  by  the  Court  of  Audit,  while  in  the  Government  proposal,  the  Court  of  Audit  would  still  need  a 
reasonable suspicion before it can initiate an audit. See Court of Audit (2021), Draft for a Political Party Law 
and Court of Audit (2022), Position Paper on amendment to the Political Party law of 2012 

139  Amendment  on  the  financing  of  political  parties  (Political  Party  Law),  the  media  law  and  the  law  on  the 

Constitutional Court, 2487/A.  

140  Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law 
141  Austrian  Parliament  (2022),  Ministerial  draft  law  regarding  federal  law,  with  which  a  federal  law  on  the 
procedure and protection in the event of indications of violations of rights in certain legal areas (Whistleblower 
Protection Act - HSchG) is enacted 

142  Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14 and information received from the Central Public 
Prosecutor’s Office  for Combating Economic Crimes and  Corruption in the context of the country  visit to 
Austria.  

143  Anti-Corruption Referendum (2022), Content; Austrian Government, General information on Referendums; 

Austrian Government, Current popular initiatives - registration week 2 to 9 May 2022.  

144  SORA Institute for Social Research and Consulting (2021), Austrian Democracy Monitor, p. 10.  
145  Information received from the Senior Public Prosecutor’s Office Vienna in the context of the country visit to 

Austria. 

15 

 
                                                 
the  Government146.  The  Standing  Sub-Committee  of  the  Court  of  Audit  Committee  of  the 
National Council has also carried out an evaluation of the Government’s public procurement 
processes  during  the  pandemic,  including  purchasing  of  masks,  protective  equipment  and 
vaccines147. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

The right to freedom of expression and the duty, incumbent on state authorities, to grant access 
to information, are enshrined in the Constitution. Secondary legislation guarantees the right of 
journalists  to  protect  the  confidentiality  of  their  sources148  and  regulates  the  authorities’ 
obligation  to  disclose  information  to  the  public149.  However,  a  general  right  to  access 
documents  does  not  exist  in  Austria.  The  regulators  for  audiovisual  media  services,  the 
Austrian  Communications  Authority  (KommAustria),  and  the  administrative  body,  the 
Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications (RTR)150 were set 
up under the KommAustria Act in 2001151.  

The two media regulatory authorities continue to function independently. There have been 
no significant changes in the legal framework concerning the media regulatory authorities since 
the 2021 Rule of Law Report and the regulators are fully independent from the Government. 
The  resources  attributed  to  the  media  authorities  are  assessed  as  appropriate152.  The  2022 
Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) reports a very low risk with regard to the independence and 
effectiveness of the Austrian media authorities153.  

The Austrian Press Council operates as a self-regulatory facility for the press, however 
not  all  main  media  actors  participate  in  the  system.  Public  awareness  concerning  the 
importance  of  journalistic  ethical  standards  has  increased  in  the  last  year,  according  to 
stakeholders154. This has contributed to new organisations joining the self-regulatory system155, 
though not all Austrian newspapers are members of the Austrian Press Council and several do 
not follow the system156.  

There have been no changes in the legal framework concerning transparency of media 
ownership,  and  media  concentration  remains  high.  Secondary  legislation  provides  for 

146  Court of Audit (2022), COVID-19 short-time unemployment insurance: Concept for the targeted detection of 

abuse was missing. 

147  Austrian Parliament (2021), Audit of the management of the federal procurement GmbH, which is owned by 
the  federal  government,  with  regard  to  procurement  processes  and  contract  awards  in  connection  with  the 
COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 to date. 

148  Media Act, Federal Law Gazette No. 314/1981, as amended by: Federal Law Gazette I No. 101/2015. 
149  Fundamental Act on the duty to grant information. 
150  The  RTR  is  a  nonprofit  state-owned  company,  which  among  other  things  operationally  supports 

KommAustria.  

151  Austria ranks 31st in the 2022 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 17th in the 

previous year.  

152  Information received from KommAustria in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
153  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria p. 11. 
154  Following in particular the terrorist attack that happened in Vienna in 2020 and some newspapers reports and 
publications. Information received from Verband Österreichischer Zeitungen (Publishers’ Association) in the 
context of the country visit to Austria.  

155 This includes the daily newspaper ‘Heute’. Information received from the Austrian Press Council in the context 

of the country visit to Austria.  

156  Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, Media Landscapes – country profile Austria 

and information received in the context of the country visit to Austria. 

16 

 
                                                 
detailed provisions requiring the disclosure of ownership in the news media sector157 and no 
particular instances of difficulties in identifying media ownership have been reported this year. 
However,  the  2022  MPM  continues  to  report  a  medium  risk  to  the  transparency  of  media 
ownership indicator due to the fact that information on the ultimate ownership structures of 
media companies is not generally available. Media concentration in Austria is mainly regulated 
by competition  law rules158. Some specific requirements apply only  for the audiovisual  and 
radio sectors159. The Austrian media landscape is characterised by a few dominant players160, 
strong  media  concentration  present  at  local  level  and  some  instances  of  cross-media 
concentration as reported by stakeholders161. The MPM 2022 reports a high risk for news media 
concentration mainly due to shortcomings of the existing legislation162. 

The Government has announced plans to address the persisting concerns with regard to 
the high amounts of state advertising and the transparency and fairness of its allocation. 
High amounts of state advertising continue to be allocated to media in Austria. The figures 
seem to continue increasing, with EUR 225 million having been spent by the public authorities 
in 2021163. Of this 225 million, EUR 45.3 million have been spent by the national Government 
in  2021,  compared  to  EUR  46.8  million  in  2020.  Approximatively  EUR  44  million  were 
allocated to regular subsidies for the media164. The MPM 2022 assessed a medium risk for the 
state regulation of resources and support to the media sector165. As already noted in the 2020 
and 2021 Rule of Law Reports166, several stakeholders and a study have raised concerns about 
the  lack  of  transparency  and  fairness  in  the  process  of  allocation  of  state  advertising167. 
Concerns have also been raised in the fall of 2021 regarding alleged attempts by members of 
Government to interfere with the media, including through the provision of state advertising168, 
which are subject to ongoing investigations169. In January 2022, the Government entrusted the 

157  Media Act (Mediengesetz), Federal Law Gazette No. 314/1981, as amended by: Federal Law Gazette I No. 

101/2015. 

158  Federal Act against Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition (Cartel Act 2005 – KartG 2005), 2005/2019, 

Sections 8-9 and 13. 

159  These are provisions to prevent cross-media and horizontal concentration. The only existing media-specific 
merger control provisions are found in cartel law, 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, 
p. 12.  

160  Contribution from European Federation of Journalists for the 2022 Rule of Law Report and Media Landscapes, 

Country Profile Austria.  

161  Information received from the Journalists’ Union and Press Club Concordia in the context of the country visit 

to Austria; 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p.12. 

162  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 12.  
163  Public  authorities  include  the  national  government,  federal  states,  local  communities,  cities  and  public 
companies. .In 2020, in Austria EUR 223 million were spent on state advertising, while regular state subsidies 
for the media amounted to around EUR 49 million, in addition to extraordinary subsidies due to the COVID-
19 pandemic of about EUR 35 million, 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Austria, p. 14.  

164 Der Standard (2022), Advertising by public bodies in 2021 at a new high: EUR 225 million and 2022 Media 

Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, pp. 9 and 16. 
165  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 16. 
166  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11 and 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 14.  

167  Medienhaus Wien (2021), Seemingly transparent II – Study of state advertising and media support in 2022; 
Presse Club Concordia (2021), Proposals on journalism support, and information received in the context of 
the country visit to Austria.  

168  See e.g. Der Standard (2021), Interview  with Presse Club Concordia Director Kraus on advertising, which 
calls for transparent criteria for government advertising and a reform of press funding; 2022 Media Pluralism 
Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 9.  

169  Press Statement from the WKStA on the house searches of 6 October 2021.  

17 

 
                                                 
competent  Minister  for  media  with  the  preparation  of  a  set  of  measures  geared  at  a 
reorganisation  of  the  Austrian  media  funding  system  in  general,  including  the  allocation  of 
state advertising170. A number of roundtables with stakeholders have started to be organised in 
early 2022 with the purpose of gathering their input. While a robust framework is in place to 
ensure  editorial  independence171,  there  have  been  reported  attempts  of  interference  by 
politicians  and  heads  of  influential  companies172.  As  noted  by  the  2022  Media  Pluralism 
Monitor,  these  strong  legal  safeguards  contribute  to  keep  the  indicator  on  the  political 
independence of media at medium risk173. 

Risks  related  to  potential  political  interference  are  mitigated  by  structural  and  legal 
safeguards  that  ensure  the  independence  of  Austrian  public  service  media  and  its 
journalists.  The  governing  bodies  of  the  Austrian  Broadcasting  Corporation  (ORF)  are  the 
Director General, the Foundation Council and the Audience Council. The management of ORF 
rests  with  the  Director  General  whose  post  is  subject  to  certain  specific  qualifications  and 
incompatibility rules174. The Foundation Council may dismiss the Director General by a two-
thirds majority vote without the need to provide any specific reasons. Several stakeholders have 
pointed  to  attempts  by  political  authorities  to  influence  the  appointment  and  dismissal  of 
management and board positions at the ORF175. In particular, concerns have been expressed on 
the appointment procedures of the Foundation Council of the Broadcasting Corporation; the 
Foundation  Council  appoints  all  high  officials,  approves  the  budget  and  monitors  financial 
conduct176. It consists of 35 members appointed by the federal Government, the Government 
of  each  Federal  province,  the  Audience  Council  and  the  Central  Staff  Council.  15  of  these 
members  are  appointed  by  the  federal  Government,  taking  into  consideration  the  relative 
strength of the political parties represented in Parliament. Therefore, MPM 2022 reports a high 
risk  for  the  indicator  on  independence  of  public  service  media  governance  and  funding177. 
Despite these challenges stemming from possible political interference, safeguards ensuring 
editorial  independence  of  journalists178  have  allowed  them  to  publicly  speak  out  against 

170  Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 20.  
171  The ‘protection of editorial confidentiality’ is stipulated in section 31 of the Media Act. This provision foresees 
that journalists have the right to refuse testimony in criminal proceedings on information obtained in their 
profession.  Moreover,  the  independence  of  journalists  in  the  public  broadcasting  service,  the  ORF,  is 
guaranteed  through  the  Federal  Act  on  the  Austrian  Broadcasting  Corporation  and  a  number  of  decisions 
underline the effective remedies to protect the independence of ORF journalists. Rule of Law Report 2020, 
Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 12 and 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country 
report for Austria, pp. 14 and 15. 

172  Contribution from the European Federation of Journalists for the 2022 Rule of Law Report and information 

received in the context of the country visit to Austria. 

173  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 15. 
174  The legal basis for the ORF is Section 22 et seq. of the Federal Act on the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation 

(ORF Act – ORF-G).  

175  Information received in the context of the country visit to Austria; contribution from the European Federation 
of Journalists for the 2022 Rule of Law Report; Presse Club Concordia, position paper on ORF governing 
bodies; 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria p. 17; Media Freedom Rapid Response, 
Austria: Election of new ORF head shines spotlight on selection process; Anti-corruption Referendum (2021), 
anti-corruption referendum strongly criticises modalities of ORF election.  

176  The appointment procedures of the two bodies are established in the Federal Act on the Austrian Broadcasting 

Corporation, 1984/2021, Section 20 et seq. 

177  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 16.  
178  The Federal Constitutional Act on ‘Guaranteeing the independence of broadcasting’ together with the Federal 
Act on the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation provides the editorial independence of ORF. Furthermore, ORF 
Act, section 32 guarantees the independence of the programming staff as well as journalistic staff of the ORF 

18 

 
                                                 
possible  interferences179.  Concerning  licensing  for  operation,  as  regards  ORF,  its  right  to 
broadcast  derives  from  the  ORF  Act.  Not  all  broadcasting  services  in  Austria  require  an 
operating licence180. For those services requiring a licence181, this is granted for ten years and 
following  a  public  tender.  Among  other  requirements,  the  diversity  of  opinion  and  the 
independence of the program are taken into consideration. 

The lack of a legal framework concerning access to documents remains a challenge and 
the draft law on access to information has not advanced. As reported in the 2021 Rule of 
Law Report182, the Government has proposed a freedom of information law, which faced some 
criticisms during the public consultation183 and has not progressed further184. The draft law is 
still under negotiation and there is no concrete indication of date for presenting the proposal to 
Parliament185.  Currently,  a  duty  to  grant  information  is  enshrined  in  the  Constitution  and 
specified in federal law and provincial laws; however, a general right to access documents does 
not  exist  in  Austria186.  Further  limitations  to  access  information  in  practice  stem  from  the 
Constitution  due  to  the  duty  of  secrecy187.  The  2022  MPM  reports  a  medium  risk  on  the 
indicator concerning the protection of the right to information188. 

While the general standards of journalistic profession remain good, journalists continue 
to face threats and harassment. As reported in the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports189, 
there is no specific provision in the Austrian law concerning the safety of journalists. Since 
July  2021,  there  have  been  six  alerts  to  the  Council  of  Europe  Platform  to  promote  the 
protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists,  which  concern  attacks  against  journalists 
during protests and intimidation of the Austrian Public Broadcaster‘s staff. The Government 
has replied to all the alerts and one alert has been resolved190. Seven alerts have been published 

and it furthermore provides for the possibility of issuing a complaint by employees in the event of a violation 
of those provisions.  

179  See for example a statement by the ORF Editor’s Council from 31 January 2022 on political side-agreements 
on appointments at the ORF, calling to depoliticise the appointment system at the ORF, Austrian Press Agency 
(2022), “Free ORF from political pressure”.  

180  The Austrian Constitution prohibits the introduction of a state licensing requirement for the press, basic law 
on the General Rights of Nationals, article 13. For certain television services and certain audio-visual media 
services, there is a mere notification requirement, Private Radio Broadcasting Act, Section 6a, Federal Act on 
Audiovisual Media Services, section 9. 

181  Television services by means of terrestrial transmission, via satellite as well as the provision of radio channels 
requires  a  license,  Private  Radio  Broadcasting  Act,  section  3  et  sub.,  Federal  Act  on  Audiovisual  Media 
Services, sections 4 et sub. 

182  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11. 
183  Positions submitted during the public consultation: Access Info Europe (2021), legal analysis of the Austrian 
Freedom of Information Act; Forum Informationsfreiheit (2021), Opinion on the draft Freedom of Information 
Act.   

184  Information received from the Federal Chancellery in the context of the country visit to Austria. 
185  Austrian Parliament (2022), 'Federal Minister Edtstadler: ongoing talks related to the Freedom of Information 

Act'.  

186  According to Articles III and VI of the Recommendation Rec(2002)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the 
Council of Europe to member states on access to official documents, Member States should guarantee the right 
of everyone to  have access, on request,  to official documents  held by public authorities and such requests 
should be dealt promptly.  

187  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11. 
188  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 10. 
189  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 12 and 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 15. 

190  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists. 

19 

 
                                                 
on  the  Mapping  Media  Freedom  platform191  As  reported  by  MPM  2022,  the  indicator  on 
journalistic profession, standards and protection is no longer classified as low risk and it has 
increased to a medium risk192 As noted by the MPM 2022 and stakeholders193, while the general 
standards  of  journalistic  profession  remain  good,  the  safety  of  journalists  is  increasingly 
threatened, in particular by online harassment and intimidation. There have been several reports 
of  journalists  receiving  threats  and  being  harassed  during  protests  against  COVID-19 
measures194; public service media journalists appeared to have been particularly targeted195. 
Stakeholders pointed to a growing use of legal threats to journalists, and to the recurring trend 
of journalists being personally insulted and discredited196. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Austria is a federal republic with a bicameral parliament, composed of the National Council 
(Nationalrat) and the Federal Council (Bundesrat). Legislative proposals can be submitted by 
the Government, by members of both chambers of parliament or by way of popular initiative197. 
The  Constitutional  Court  carries  out  an  ex-post  constitutionality  review  of  laws,  which  is 
possible both in concrete cases198 and as an abstract review of a law, based on appeals by the 
federal or a regional Government or by a third of the members of either parliamentary chamber. 
Several  different  Ombudspersons  contribute  to  upholding  fundamental  rights  in  different 
areas199.  

Stakeholders are now consulted on all draft laws under discussion in Parliament, but pre-
parliamentary consultation processes still present challenges in practice. As of 1 August 
2021, the ‘parliamentary consultation procedure’ entered into force, which, as already noted in 
the 2021 Rule of Law Report200, allows stakeholders and citizens to submit comments on all 
legislative proposals regardless of their origin, as long as the parliamentary legislative process 
is ongoing201. All responses are accessible to the public on the Parliament’s website (in case of 
responses from individuals, only with their consent). The Parliament reports that the tool is 

191  Mapping Media Freedom, country profile Austria.  
192  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 11. 
193  Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of law Report; Contribution from the European Federation of 
Journalists for the 2022 Rule of Law Report; 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, pp. 
11 and 22. 

194  Last year, following complaints over the attacks against journalists during ‘anti-corona’ demonstrations have 
led to the creation of a specific police “media contact” point for the protection of journalists during protests, 
Ministry of the Interior (2021), “Police implement media contact officer”.  

195  Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 
196  Contribution  from  CIVICUS  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report;  information  received  from  Presse  Club 
Concordia in the context of the country visit to Austria; 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor; country report for 
Austria, p. 11. 

197  This requires signatures by 100 000 voters or by one sixth each of the voters in three provinces. Input from 

Austria for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 50.  

198  The  review can take place ex-officio or on  application by  another court,  an individual or a party to a case 

pending before an ordinary court of first instance.  

199  This includes the Ombudsperson Board, the Federal Disability Ombudsperson, the Ombudsperson for Equal 

Treatment and the Ombudsperson for Children and Youth.  

200  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 16.  
201  Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 26; Amendment to the Act on the National Council’s 

Rules of Procedure, Federal Law Gazette I No. 63/2021.  

20 

 
                                                 
actively used202 and the procedure has been welcomed by stakeholders as a positive step203. 
However, while a decree of the Federal Chancellery determines that consultation periods for 
draft  laws  in  the  pre-parliamentary  process  should  be  at  least  six  weeks204,  stakeholders 
expressed concern that consultation periods are often much shorter in practice and stakeholder 
involvement  is  sometimes  purely  formalistic205.  The  lack  of  comprehensive  legislation  on 
access to information also remains an impediment to transparency of the legislative process 
(see  Section  3).  In  the  meantime,  the  work  on  developing  a  strategic  approach  for  public 
participation  in  the  digital  age206  is  continuing,  with  a  number  of  workshops  having  been 
organised in March 2022 in view of the publication of a handbook on participation in the digital 
age in the third quarter of 2022207.  

Oversight  of  measures  related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  in  particular  by  the 
Parliament and the Constitutional Court, has continued. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report208,  restrictive  measures  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  are  subject  to 
parliamentary validation by the Main Committee of the National Council, which met 22 times 
in  2021  for  this  purpose209.  The  Constitutional  Court  has  also  continued  to  exercise  its 
oversight. As of February 2022, it has received around 700 complaints related to the COVID-
19 pandemic measures, of which 500 have already been decided210, while administrative courts 
have  also  ruled  on  numerous  COVID-19  related  cases211.  In  most  cases,  the  Constitutional 
Court found the measures to be constitutional and lawful212, with some exceptions (for example 
in two rulings of 15 December 2021 concerning inter alia restrictions for the hospitality sector, 
which were considered not to be sufficiently reasoned)213.  

On 1 January 2022, Austria had 6 leading judgments of the European Court of Human 
Rights pending  implementation214. While  at  that time Austria’s rate of leading judgments 
from the past 10 years that remained pending was at 26%, the average time that the judgments 

202  According  to  the  Parliamentary  Administration,  between  August  2021  and  15  June  2022,  over  377 000 

comments had been submitted through the platform.  

203  Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting 
fundamental  rights  –  Austria,  p.  3;  Information  received  from  Interessensvertretung  gemeinnütziger 
Organisationen (IGO) in the context of the country visit to Austria.  

204  Decree of the Federal Chancellor on the principles for impact assessments for legislative and other initiatives, 

§9 (3), Federal Law Gazette I No. 489/2012.  

205  Contribution from the Supreme Court for the 2022 Rule of Law Report; Contribution from the Bar Association 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report and information received from the Bar Association, the Supreme Court, IGO, 
Transparency International Austria, Forum Informationsfreiheit and Dokustelle Austria in the context of the 
country visit to Austria.  

206  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 16-17. 
207  Written information received from the Ministry of Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport in the context of the 

country visit to Austria.  

208  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 16. 
209  Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 29.  
210  Constitutional Court (2022), Constitutional Court will hear around 400 cases as of 28 February.  
211  Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 29.  
212  See input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 27 et seq. for an overview of key rulings.  
213  Judgments of the Constitutional Court of 15 December 2021, V 229/2021, ECLI:AT:VFGH:2021:V229.2021 

and V 560/2020, ECLI:AT:VFGH:2021:V560.2020.  

214  The  adoption of necessary execution  measures  for a  judgment by the European  Court of Human  Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken.  

21 

 
                                                 
had been pending implementation was 4 years and 7 months215. This figure is influenced by 2 
cases related to the breach of the right to a fair trial which had been pending for over 10 years, 
but have since been implemented216. On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments pending 
implementation remains 6217. 

The Ombudsperson Board has been re-accredited and has now obtained A-Status. The 
Ombudsperson  Board,  functioning  as  the  National  Human  Rights  Institution  (NHRI), 
previously  accredited  with  B-Status,  underwent  re-accreditation  by  the  sub-committee  for 
accreditation  of  the  Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (GANHRI)  in 
March  2022218  and  has  now  obtained  A-Status219.  In  its  decision220,  the  Sub-Committee  on 
Accreditation  of  the  Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  noted  the 
amendments  to  the  Ombudsperson  Board’s  enabling  laws  since  its  last  review  in  2011.  It 
further recommended to the Ombudsperson Board to advocate for a number of amendments to 
the appointment procedure of its leadership, emphasised the importance of ensuring pluralism 
in  diversity  in  its  membership  and  staff  composition  and  encouraged  it  to  enhance  and 
formalise its working relationships with civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights 
defenders. CSOs noted similar points in their submission for the re-accreditation process from 
October 2021221. The Ombudsperson Board has also continued to  take an active role in  the 
oversight of measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic and in its annual Report published 
on 4 May 2022 noted an increase of 32% in  complaints in 2021 compared to 2020, mainly 
related to the COVID-19 pandemic222. A common challenge that the Board has seen emerging 
in this context is the lack of transparency and predictability of COVID-19 pandemic-related 
measures taken by the Government223.  

Civil society has continued to benefit from specific funding in the context of the COVID-
19 pandemic and an overall strengthened dialogue with the Government. Civic space in 
Austria  continues  to  be  considered  as  ‘open’224.  The  specific  funding  for  non-profit 
organisations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had been set up with a strong 
involvement of stakeholders225, has been prolonged several times, most recently until the first 

215  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases that 
are considered pending at the annual cut-off date of 1 January 2022. See the Contribution from the European 
Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 26.  

216  Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 November 2006, Stojakovic v. Austria, 30003/02, had 
been pending since 2007 and has been implemented as of 8 March 2022; of 15 July 2010,  Mladoschovitz v. 
Austria, 38663/06, had been pending since 2010 and has been implemented as of 8 March 2022. 

217  Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
218  Contribution from the Austrian Ombudsperson Board for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  
219  Report and Recommendations of the Virtual Session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), 14-25 

March 2022, 

220  Report and Recommendations of the Virtual Session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), 14-25 

March 2022, pp. 12-14.  

221  Notably, they recommend extending the scope of the human rights mandate of the Ombudsperson Board to 
economic, social and cultural rights; strengthening its role as a human rights coordinating body; introducing 
provisions and procedures aimed at safeguarding its pluralism and independence regarding the appointment 
procedure;  and  maintaining  a  regular  exchange  with  civil  society  and  stakeholders,  Amnesty  International 
Austria (2021), Joint civil society information to the GANHRI sub-committee on accreditation concerning the 
review of the Austrian Ombudsperson Board.  

222  Austrian Ombudsperson Board (2022), Annual Report 2021, Control of the Public Administration, p. 13.  
223  Information received from the Austrian Ombudsperson Board in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
224  Rating  given  by  CIVICUS.  Ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed, 

repressed and closed.  

225  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 18.  

22 

 
                                                 
quarter of 2022226. Until March 2022, over EUR 700 million had been distributed in around 
47 000 disbursements227. Furthermore, civil society reports on positive initiatives taken by the 
Government to ensure civil society involvement in policy-making procedures, although this is 
not always consistent across policy areas228. Following up on a commitment in the coalition 
agreement229,  in  spring  2022,  the  Government  re-activated  an  advisory  working  group  on 
donations for civil society organisations which had not met since 2017. Stakeholders consider 
in particular that the scope of organisations covered by the tax exemptions should be extended 
to CSOs in the areas of human rights, civil and political rights, democracy, transparency and 
adult education230. 

Concerns  have  been  raised  over  the  impact  of  recently  adopted  legislation  on  the 
operating space for civil society organisations. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report231, 
stakeholders have raised concerns over the impact of a package of anti-terrorism laws as well 
as amendments to legislation on legal personality of religious associations and the so-called 
Islam Law232 on freedom of association and the operating space for civil society, specifically 
for  Muslim  organisations233.  Through  a  letter  from  August  2021,  several  UN  Special 
Rapporteurs on Human Rights234 entered into a dialogue with Austria, raising concerns over 
the legislation’s impact on freedom of association, in particular regarding the introduction of 
the  notion  of  ‘religiously  motivated  extremist  association’  as  a  basis  for  criminalisation, 
including in view of the vagueness of the terms used235. A stakeholder has also reported that 
the  application  of  such  legislation  in  practice,236,  can  be  burdensome  on  and,  together  with 
other measures affecting specifically Muslim associations, could affect the active engagement 
of such organisations.237. In January 2022, Austria submitted a number of comments in reply 
to the letter by the UN Special Rapporteurs, stressing that it considers  that the legislation is 
proportionate  and  in  line  with  Austria’s  human  rights  obligations  and  that  it  does  not 
discriminate on the basis of religion.  As regards the criticism of the vagueness of the terms 
used, Austria provides a number of clarification on their interpretation, which are also set out 
in the explanatory memorandum of the law238.  

226  IGO (2022), NGO support fund: Applications for Q4 2021 possible as of 21 February 2022.  
227  Updated data available on the website of the non-profit-organisation support fund: https://npo-fonds.at.  
228  Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting 
fundamental rights – Austria, p. 5; Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 19.  

229  Government programme 2020-2024, p. 15.  
230  See § 4a of the Income Tax Law for the list of organisations benefiting from tax exemption. See contributions 

from Forum Informationsfreiheit for the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports.  

231  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 18.  
232  Anti-terrorism law (Terror-Bekämpfungs-Gesetz) and Revision of the Federal law on the legal personality of 

religious associations and of the Islam Law 2015.  

233  Amnesty  International  Austria  (2021), Position  Paper  on  the  draft  anti-terrorism  law.  European  Centre  for 

Non-Profit Law (2021), Comments on the Draft Federal Anti-Terrorism Act in Austria.  

234  The Special rapporteurs on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while 
countering terrorism; on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; on 
the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; on minority issues on freedom of religion.  
235  Note verbale OL AUT 2/2021 of the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of 
human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion 
and  protection  of  the  right  to  freedom  of  opinion  and  expression;  the  Special  Rapporteur  on  the  rights  to 
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; the Special Rapporteur on minority issues and the Special 
Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (24 August 2021).  

236  Including the requirements for religious organisations under the Austrian ‘Islam Act’ (Islamgesetz). 
237  Contribution from Dokustelle Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  
238  Austrian Permanent Mission to the UN, Reply of the Government of Austria to Note Verbale OL AUT 2/2021 

(4 January 2022).  

23 

 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order*  

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en. 

Access  Info  Europe  (2021),  Legal  Analysis  of  the  Austrian  Freedom  of  Information  Act 
https://www.access-info.org/wp-content/uploads/Legal-Analysis-of-Austrian-FOIA_-Access-Info-
Europe.pdf.  

Amnesty International Austria (2021), Joint civil society information to the GANHRI sub-committee on 
accreditation 
Board 
of 
https://www.amnesty.at/media/8872/joint-civil-society-information-to-the-ganhri-sub-committee-on-
accreditation-concerning-the-review-of-the-austrian-ombudsman-board_maerz-2021.pdf.  

Austrian  Ombudsperson 

concerning 

review 

the 

the 

International  Austria 

Amnesty 
https://www.amnesty.at/media/8087/amnesty_oesterreich_stellungnahme_bundesgesetze_anti-
terrorismus-massnahmen_jan-2021.pdf.  

(2021),  Position  Paper  on 

the  draft  anti-terrorism 

law 

Anti-corruption Referendum (2021), anti-corruption referendum strongly criticises modalities of ORF 
election 
scharf) 
Modalitäten 
https://antikorruptionsbegehren.at/2021/08/11/antikorruptionsbegehren-kritisiert-orf-wahl-
modalitaeten-scharf/#page-content. 

(Antikorruptionsbegehren 

kritisiert 

Wahl 

ORF 

Anti-corruption Referendum (2022), Anti-corruption referendum: Reform of criminal law on corruption 
an  important  step  (Antikorruptionsbegehren:  Reform  des  Korruptionsstrafrechts  ein  „wichtiger 
https://antikorruptionsbegehren.at/2022/01/03/antikorruptionsbegehren-reform-des-
Schritt”) 
korruptionsstrafrechts-ein-wichtiger-schritt/#page-content. 

Anti-corruption  Referendum 
inhalt/#page-content. 

(2022),  Content 

(Inhalt)  https://antikorruptionsbegehren.at/der-

Anti-corruption Referendum (2022), “Unglorious anniversary”: Head of the Federal Anti  Corruption 
Office  has  not  been  filled  for  two  years  („Unrühmliches  Jubiläum“:  Leitung  des  Bundesamts  zur 
Korruptionsbekämpfung 
nachbesetzt) 
https://antikorruptionsbegehren.at/2022/02/01/unruehmliches-jubilaeum-leitung-des-bundesamts-zur-
korruptionsbekaempfung-seit-zwei-jahren-nicht-nachbesetzt/#page-content. 

Jahren 

nicht 

zwei 

seit 

Association of Austrian Administrative Judges (2017), Agenda for the administrative judiciary 2022 
https://uvsvereinigung.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/agenda-vg-2022.pdf.  

Association  of  Austrian  Administrative 
https://uvsvereinigung.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/stellungnahme_sideletter.pdf.  

(2022),  Position  paper  on 

Judges 

sideletters 

Austrian Association of Judges (2022), Contribution from the Austrian Association of Judges for the 
2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Austrian  Association  of  Judges  (2022),  Position  paper  on  current  discussions  regarding  judicial 
appointments 
https://richtervereinigung.at/stellungnahme-zur-aktuellen-diskussion-um-
besetzungsvorgaengen-in-der-justiz/.  

Austrian  Association  of 
https://richtervereinigung.at/wp-content/uploads/delightful-downloads/2022/02/RIV_Stellungnahme-
Besetzungverfahren.pdf.  

(2022),  Position  paper 

judicial  appointments 

Judges 

on 

Austrian Association of Judges and the Austrian Union of Judges and Prosecutors (2022), Open letter 
on 
https://richtervereinigung.at/wp-content/uploads/delightful-
appointments 
downloads/2022/02/Offener-Brief_Besetzungsverfahren.pdf.  

judicial 

24 

 
Austrian Association of Judges and the Austrian Union of Judges and Prosecutors, Resources for the 
Rule 
https://richtervereinigung.at/wp-
content/uploads/delightful-downloads/2019/08/2019_Ressourcen-f%C3%BCr-den-Rechtsstaat-1.pdf.  

(Ressourcen 

Rechtsstaat) 

Law 

den 

für 

of 

Austrian Association of Prosecutors (2021), Prosecutors react to press conference alleging ‘leftist cells’ 
in  the  WkStA  (Reaktion  auf  die  Pressekonferenz  des  AbgNR  Mag.  Hanger  zu  behaupteten  “linken 
Zellen der WKStA”) https://staatsanwaelte.at/reaktion-auf-die-pressekonferenz-des-abgnr-mag-hanger-
zu-behaupteten-linken-zellen-der-wksta/. 

Austrian Bar Association (2022), Contribution from the Austrian Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of 
Law Report. 

Austrian Government (2020), Government programme 2020-2024. 

Austrian Government (2022), Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Austrian  Government,  General  information  on  Referendums  (Allgemeines  zu  Volksbegehren) 
https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/leben_in_oesterreich/buergerbeteiligung___direkte_demokratie/
2/Seite.320471.html.  

Austrian  Government,  Current  popular  initiatives  -  registration  week  2  to  9  May  2022  (Aktuelle 
Volksbegehren 
2022) 
https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/leben_in_oesterreich/buergerbeteiligung___direkte_demokratie/
2/Seite.320477.html.  

Eintragungswoche 

vom 

Mai 

bis 

2. 

9. 

– 

Austrian Ombudsperson Board (2022), Annual Report 2021.  

Austrian Ombudsperson Board (2022), Contribution from the Austrian Ombudsperson Board for the 
2022 rule of Law Report. 

Austrian Parliament (2019), Handbook on the Law of Committees of Inquiry in the National Council 
(Handbuch 
Nationalrat) 
https://fachinfos.parlament.gv.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Handbuch_UsA_2019_BF.pdf.  

Untersuchungssausschüsse 

Recht 

zum 

der 

im 

Austrian Parliament (2021), Audit of the management and the federal procurement GmbH, which is 
owned  by  the  federal  government,  with  regard  to  procurement  processes  and  contract  awards  in 
connection with the COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020 to date (Prüfung der Gebarung sowie der 
im Eigentum des Bundes stehenden Bundesbeschaffung GmbH hinsichtlich der Beschaffungsvorgänge 
und  Auftragsvergaben  im  Zusammenhang  mit  der  COVID-19-Pandemie  seit  März  2020  bis  dato) 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/I/I_01024/index.shtml.  

Austrian Parliament (2021), Code of Conduct for Members of the National Council and Members of 
the  Federal  Council  (Verhaltensregeln  für  Abgeordnete  des  Nationalrates  und  Mitglieder  des 
Bundesrates) 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/ZUSD/PDF/Verhaltensregeln_und_Praxisleitfaden_fuer_ParlamentarierI
nnen_NEU_BF.pdf.  

Austrian Parliament (2021), Demand for the establishment of a committee of inquiry: ÖVP corruption 
investigation  committee  (Verlangen  auf  Einsetzung  eines  Untersuchungsausschusses:  ÖVP-
Korruptions-Untersuchungsausschuss) 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/US/US_00004/index.shtml.  

Austrian  Parliament 
Untersuchungsausschuss) 
USA_00003_00906/index.shtml.  

(2021),  ÖVP  corruption 

(ÖVP-Korruptions-
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/A-USA/A-

investigation  committee 

Austrian Parliament (2022), Edtstadler: Ongoing talks on the Freedom of Information Act (Edtstadler: 
Laufend 
Informationsfreiheitsgesetz) 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/PR/JAHR_2022/PK0245/index.shtml.  

Gespräche 

zum 

25 

 
Austrian Parliament (2022), Guidelines for Members of Parliament on how to Deal with Gifts and other 
Advantages 
zum  Umgang  mit  Vorteilen”) 
für  MandatarInnen 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/ZUSD/PDF/Orientierungshilfe_fuer_MandatarInnen_Web.pdf.  

(“Orientierungshilfe 

Austrian Parliament (2022), Ministerial draft law regarding federal law, with which a federal law on 
the procedure and protection in the event of indications of violations of rights in certain legal areas 
(Whistleblower Protection Act - HSchG) is enacted (“Ministerialentwurf betreffend Bundesgesetz, mit 
dem  ein  Bundesgesetz  über  das  Verfahren  und  den  Schutz  bei  Hinweisen  auf  Rechtsverletzungen in 
bestimmten  Rechtsbereichen 
(HinweisgeberInnenschutzgesetz  –  HSchG)  erlassen  wird”), 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/ME/ME_00210/index.shtml.  

Austrian Permanent Mission to the UN, Reply of the Government of Austria to the information request 
of five Special Rapporteurs on the Austrian Anti-Terrorism Act (Terrorbekämpfungs-Gesetz TeBG) of 
4 January 2022 https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=36733.  

Austrian Press Agency (2022), “Free ORF from political pressure” (ORF aus den Fängen der Politik 
befreien) 
https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20220131_OTS0027/orf-aus-den-faengen-der-
politik-befreien.  

CCJE Opinion No. 19 (2016) on the role of court presidents. 

Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Combating  Economic  Crimes  and  Corruption  (2021),  Press 
Statement from the WKStA on the house searches of 6 October 2021 (Pressemitteilung der WKStA zu 
den  am  6.10.2021  durchgeführten  Hausdurchsuchungen)  https://www.justiz.gv.at/wksta/wirtschafts-
und-korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft/medienstelle/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilung-der-wksta-zu-
den-am-6-10-2021-durchgefuehrten-
hausdurchsuchungen.aaf.de.html;jsessionid=6174CD68ACBDBD32C2896207FD208465.s1.  

overview 

Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption (2022), Business 
allocation 
Geschäftsverteilungsübersicht) 
Aus 
https://www.justiz.gv.at/wksta/wirtschafts-und-
korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft/zustaendigkeit/geschaeftsverteilung-
auszug.2c9484854227736501429a1a49f81285.de.html.  

(Auszug 

Der 

Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Combating  Economic  Crimes  and  Corruption  (2022),  Press 
Statement  from  the  WKStA  on  the  arrest  of  2  March  2022  (Pressemitteilung  der  Wirtschafts-  und 
Korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft 
(WKStA)  zu  der  am  2.  März  2022  erfolgten  Festnahme) 
https://www.justiz.gv.at/wksta/wirtschafts-und-
korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft/medienstelle/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilung-der-wirtschafts-und-
korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft-(wksta)-zu-der-am-2-maerz-2022-erfolgten-festnahme.b43.de.html.  

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor 2022. 

CEPEJ (2020), Evaluation Report on European judicial systems. 

CEPEJ (2021), Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States. 

Civicus (2022), Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Austria https://monitor.civicus.org/country/austria/. 

Constitutional Court, judgment of 15 December 2021, V560/2020, ECLI:AT:VFGH:2021:V560.2020. 

Constitutional Court, judgment of 15 December 2021, V229/2021, ECLI:AT:VFGH:2021:V229.2021. 

Constitutional Court (2022), Constitutional Court will hear around 400 cases as of 28 February (VfGH 
berät 
Fälle) 
https://www.vfgh.gv.at/medien/Maerz_2022_Vorschau_Covid.php.  

Februar 

etwa 

über 

400 

28. 

ab 

Council of Bars and Law Societies (2022), Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law Societies 
(CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

26 

 
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2000), Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of 
Ministers on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System. 

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2002), Recommendation Rec(2002)2 of the Committee of 
Ministers to member states on access to official documents. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2010),  Report  on  European  Standards  as  regards  the 
Independence of the Judicial System: Part II - the Prosecution Service (CDL-AD(2010)040-e). 

Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Austria 
https://fom.coe.int/en/pays/detail/11709480. 

Court  of  Audit  (2021),  Draft  for  a  Political  Party  Law  (Entwurf  zum  Parteiengesetz) 
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home_1/home_6/Parteiengesetz_PFG_2021_OK_BF.pdf.  

Court  of  Audit  (2022),  COVID-19  short-time  unemployment  insurance:  Concept  for  the  targeted 
detection  of  abuse  was  missing  (COVID-19-Kurzarbeit:  Konzept  zur  gezielten  Aufdeckung  von 
Missbrauch 
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/news/news/aktuelles/COVID-19-
Kurzarbeit.html.  

fehlte) 

Court of Audit (2022), Position Paper on amendment to the Political Party law of 2012 (Antrag zur 
Änderung  des  Parteiengesetzes  2012,  des  Mediengesetzes  und  des  Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetzes 
1953), 
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/was-wir-tun/was-wir-tun_1/was-wir-
tun_5/Stellungnahme_Parteiengesetz2012.pdf.  

Der  Standard  (2021),  Presse  Club  Concordia  Director  Kraus  on  advertising:  ‘It’s  completely  not 
transparent which media receives how much and why’ (Concordia-Chefin Kraus über Inserate: "Es ist 
völlig 
erhalten") 
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000130333171/concordia-chefin-kraus-ueber-inserate-es-ist-
voellig-intransparent-welche.  

intransparent, 

Medien 

welche 

warum 

viel 

wie 

Der Standard (2021), Trend reversal in the judiciary budget continues (Trendwende im Justizbuget setzt 
sich 
fort)  https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000130513382/trendwende-im-justizbudget-setzt-sich-
fort.  

öffentlichen 

Der Standard (2022), Advertising by public bodies in 2021 at a new high: 225 million euros (Werbung 
von 
225  Millionen  Euro) 
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000134119673/werbung-oeffentlicher-stellen-2021-auf-neuem-
hoechststand-225-millionen-euro.  

neuem  Höchststand: 

Stellen 

2021 

auf 

Der  Standard  (2022),  Sobotka  wants to relinquish  chairmanship  of  ÖVP  corruption  committee  on  a 
case-by-case  basis  (Sobotka  will  Vorsitz  im  ÖVP-Korruptions-U-Ausschuss  fallweise  abgeben) 
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000133501012/sobotka-will-vorsitz-im-oevp-korruptions-u-
ausschuss-fallweise-abgebe.  

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses'  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2022),  Flash  Eurobarometer  507:  businesses'  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. 

Dokustelle Austria (2022), Contribution from Dokustelle Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

Association of European Administrative Judges (2022), Contribution from the Association of European 
Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

27 

 
European Association of Judges (2022), Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 
2022 Rule of Law Report.  

European Centre for Non-Profit Law (2021), Comments on the Draft Federal Anti-Terrorism Act in 
Austria, 
https://ecnl.org/sites/default/files/2021-
02/Austria%20draft%20law%20extremism%20ECNL%20analysis_1.pdf. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Austria. 

European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Austria. 

European Commission (2022), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 9 November 2006, Stojakovic v. Austria, 30003/02. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 15 July 2010, Mladoschovitz v. Austria, 38663/06. 

European Federation of Journalists (2022), Contribution from the European Federation of Journalists 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

Franet, European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy  (2022), Country 
research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights 
– Austria, Vienna, EU Agency for Fundamental Rights https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-
space-2022-update#country-related.  

Federal  Disciplinary  Authority 
https://www.bmkoes.gv.at/Ministerium/bdb.html.  

(2020),  Annual  Report 

2020 

(Jahresbericht 

2020) 

Federal  Disciplinary  Authority 
https://www.bmkoes.gv.at/Ministerium/bdb.html. 

(2021),  Annual  Report 

2021 

(Jahresbericht 

2021) 

Forum Informationsfreiheit (2020), Contribution from Forum Informationsfreiheit for the 2020 Rule of 
Law Report.  

Forum Informationsfreiheit (2021), Contribution from Forum Informationsfreiheit for the 2021 Rule of 
Law Report.  

Forum Informationsfreiheit (2021), Opinion on the draft Freedom of Information Act (Stellungnahme 
Informationsfreiheitsgesetzes), 
eines 
zum 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/SNME/SNME_82975/imfname_943873.pdf.  

Entwurf 

GANHRI Sub-committee on Accreditation (2022), Report and Recommendations of the Virtual Session 
of 
2022, 
Accreditation 
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/SCA-Report-March-2022_E.pdf.  

Sub-Committee 

(SCA), 

March 

14-25 

the 

on 

GRECO (2017), Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Austria on corruption prevention in 
respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

GRECO  (2021),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Interim  Compliance  Report  on  Austria  on  corruption 
prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

GRECO  (2022),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  Interim  Compliance  Report  on  Austria  on 
corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.  

IGO  (2022),  NGO support  fund:  Applications for  Q4  2021 possible as  of  21  February  2022  (NPO-
Fonds: 
möglich) 
https://gemeinnuetzig.at/2022/02/npo-fonds-antraege-fuer-das-4-quartal-2021-ab-21-februar-
moeglich/.  

Februar 

Anträge 

Quartal 

2021 

das 

seit 

21. 

für 

4. 

28 

 
Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental 
freedoms while countering terrorism; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the 
right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful 
assembly and of association; the Special Rapporteur on minority issues and the Special Rapporteur on 
(24  August  2021),  Note  verbale  OL  AUT  2/2021 
freedom  of 
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26590.  

religion  or  belief 

Mapping  Media  Freedom,  country  profile  Austria  https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/country-
profiles/austria/.  

Media  Freedom  Rapid  Response,  Austria:  Election  of  new  ORF  head  shines  spotlight  on  selection 
process https://www.mfrr.eu/austria-election-of-new-orf-head-shines-spotlight-on-selection-process/.  

Media Landscapes, Country Profile Austria https://medialandscapes.org/country/austria. 

Medienhaus Wien (2021), Seemingly transparent II – Study of state advertising and media support in 
2020  (Scheinbar  transparent  II  -  Eine  Analyse  der  Inserate  der  Bundesregierung  in  Österreichs 
Tageszeitungen 
2020) 
und 
http://www.mhw.at/cgi-bin/file.pl?id=535.  

und  Rundfunkförderung 

im  Pandemiejahr 

der  Presse- 

Ministry of Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport (2022),  Written contribution from the Ministry of 
Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport in the context of the country visit.  

Ministry of Finance (2022), Federal Budget 2022 - Subdivision 11 Interior (Bundesvoranschlag 2022 - 
Untergliederung 
Inneres) 
https://service.bmf.gv.at/Budget/Budgets/2022/bfg/teilhefte/UG11/UG11_Teilheft_2022.pdf.  

11 

Ministry 
https://www.bmj.gv.at/ministerium/organisation-und-aufgaben/weisungsberichte.html.  

(2021),  Report 

instructions 

Justice 

2020 

(Weisungsbericht 

on 

of 

2020) 

Ministry of Justice (2022), Answers to the written question 9096/J-NR/2021 from Representative W. 
Gerstl  to  the  Minister  of  Justice.  (Antworten  auf  die  schriftliche  Frage  9096/J-NR/2021  des 
Justizministerin) 
Abgeordneten 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/AB/AB_08937/imfname_1422562.pdf. 

Gerstl 

die 

W. 

an 

Ministry  of  Justice  (2022),  Roundtable  on  appointments  in  the  judiciary  (Runder  Tisch  zu 
Postenbesetzungen  in  der  Justiz)  https://www.bmj.gv.at/ministerium/aktuelle-meldungen/Runder-
Tisch-zu-Postenbesetzungen-in-der-Justiz.html.  

Ministry of Justice (2022), Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country 
visit.  

Ministry  of  the  Interior  (2021),  “Police  implement  media  contact  officer”  (Nehammer:  Polizei 
implementiert 
Demos) 
https://www.bmi.gv.at/news.aspx?id=4E46696F4950636869674D3D.  

"Medienkontaktbeamte" 

bei 

ORF (2022), Political Party Finances – Court of Audit will get insight (Parteifinanzen, Rechnungshof 
soll Einblick bekommen) https://orf.at/stories/3248177/.  

Parliamentary Administration (2022), Written contribution from the Parliament Administration in the 
context of the country visit.  

Presse Club Concordia (2021), Proposal on journalism support (Vorschläge des Presseclub Concordia 
zu 
https://concordia.at/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/Concordia_Journalismusfoerderung_Inserate-1.pdf.  

Journalismusförderung) 

konvergenten 

einer 

Presse Club Concordia, Position paper on ORF governing bodies (Concordia Forderungen zu einer 
ORF 
https://concordia.at/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Concordia-ORF-
Gremienreform.pdf.  

Gremienreform) 

Prosecutors’  Association  (2021),  Prosecutor  General  only  with  respect  of  the  separation  of  powers 
(Generalstaatsanwalt 
Gewaltentrennung) 
https://staatsanwaelte.at/generalstaatsanwalt-nur-unter-einhaltung-der-gewaltentrennung/.  

Einhaltung 

unter 

nur 

der 

29 

 
Prosecutors’ Association (2022), Position paper on the appointment process for prosecutors (Erklärung 
der Vereinigung Österreichischer Staatsanwältinnen und Staatsanwälte zum staatsanwaltschaftlichen 
Besetzungsverfahren) 
https://staatsanwaelte.at/erklaerung-der-vereinigung-oesterreichischer-
staatsanwaeltinnen-und-staatsanwaelte-zum-staatsanwaltschaftlichen-besetzungsverfahren.  

Reporters without Borders – Austria https://rsf.org/en/country/austria.  

SORA  Institute  for  Social  Research  and  Consulting  (2021),  Austrian  Democracy  Monitor 
(Österreichischer 
Monitor) 
https://www.sora.at/fileadmin/downloads/projekte/2021_SORA_Praesentation-Demokratie-Monitor-
2021.pdf.  

Demokratie 

Supreme Court (2022), Contribution from the Austrian Supreme Court for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. 

Transparency  International  Austria  (2022),  Austria,  Political  parties  law  –  Important  first  step! 
(Parteiengesetz  –  Wichtiger  Erster  Schritt!)  https://ti-austria.at/2022/02/22/parteiengesetz-wichtiger-
erster-schritt/.  

Wiener Zeitung (2021), “Legal protection officer cannot be recalled” (Rechtsschutzbeauftragte kann 
nicht  abberufen  werden)  https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/oesterreich/2129413-
Rechtsschutzbeauftragte-kann-nicht-abberufen-werden.html.  

Zeitung 

Wiener 
https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/oesterreich/2148198-Angezeigt-ist-gleich-
angepatzt.html.  

“Angezeigt 

Cornelia 

(2022), 

Koller: 

gleich 

ist 

angepatzt” 

30 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Austria 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in February and March 2022 with: 

Interessensvertretung Gemeinnütziger Organisationen  
Journalists’ Union 

  Antikorruptionsbegehren (Anti-Corruption Referendum)  
  Association of Administrative Judges 
  Association of Judges 
  Association of Prosecutors 
  Austrian Press Council 
  Bar Association 
  Constitutional Court  
  Court of Audit 
  Federal Chancellery  
  Federal Anti-Corruption Bureau  
  Forum Informationsfreiheit 
 
 
  KommAustria (Media Regulator)  
  Media Authority 
  Ministry of Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport 
  Ministry of Finance 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Parliamentary Administration  
  Press Club Concordia  
  Public Service Broadcaster (ORF) 
  Senior Prosecutor’s Office Vienna  
  Supreme Administrative Court  
  Supreme Court  
  The Austrian Ombudsboard  
  Transparency International Austria 
  Verband Österreichischer Zeitungen (Publishers’ Association)  
  Weisungsrat (Council on instructions to prosecutors)  
  WkStA (Specialised Prosecution Service for Economic Crime and Corruption)  

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International  
  Article 19  
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom  
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists  
  European Partnership for Democracy 
  European Youth Forum 
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 

ILGA Europe 
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) 

31 

 
 
International Press Institute 

 
  Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI) 
  Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa  
  Philea 
  Reporters Without Borders 
  Transparency International Europe 

32